TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

trecol Archive

View 1 posts and 167 comments by trecol on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Well, this was with a woman I was also messing with, and we were telling each other about a few past experiences. So not as out of context as I made it seem. But yeah.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 11:41 PM
1

No, I'm talking about stuff like that many women make a nasty scowl when you tell them you have messed with other men. I've of course surrounded myself with open-minded people, some of whom know, but I've still been a witness to plenty of homophobia (really, biphobia in my case). And once I tell people they never do it anymore. They probably don't have the guts to say it to my face.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 11:30 PM
1

It does indeed depend on your crowd. But I'm shocked you haven't witnessed any more homophobia than that. Are you saying no more directed at you, or no more at all? Also, what is your gender and where do you live?
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:45 PM
2

Forgive me if I don't understand, because I'm not a subscriber to either of those subs. But after having browsed the first few pages of each (/r/ladyboners and /r/gentlemanboners), I don't find them analogous at all. It seems that /r/ladyboners focuses on posting pictures of Redditors and some celebrities while /r/gentlemanboners has exclusively celebrities. Titles like "Browsing r/firstimpression when I saw this cutie pie." and reposting the picture is, IMO, still somewhat different than "Celeb…
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:44 PM
3

Not in my experience at all. I find that if someone is going to be accepting of me, it's most likely going to be a man. Most men react either with disgust or acceptance, and virtually all women react with disgust. Even those that say otherwise that they think homosexuality is hot. I guess they can't handle it when it's standing right in front of them.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 03:07 PM
9

"No one asked for your opinion either but you commented on this post. Nice to see that you only want a one-way discussion though."
/r/MensRights02/12/12 08:56 PM
1

Actually, I didn't bring up children at all. That may have been another poster. I don't think it happens frequently in any country that others tell a victim that a rape wasn't real. My post only talked about what victims themselves think, and that's pretty universal.
/r/MensRights02/12/12 02:35 AM
1

I think virtually all areas. When a person is raped, they tend to blame themselves and generally feel like an absolute bucket of shit. Did I really tell them "no" well enough? Did I ask for it? And so on. You can see numerous examples of this in cases where women do it to men on this very sub, but it obviously applies to every victim, regardless of their gender and the gender of the attacker.
/r/MensRights01/12/12 01:04 PM
2

Not "misandristsextips", "www".
/r/MensRights30/11/12 10:41 PM
1

Well, you are correct. It's kind of too late to do anything about it because your first paragraph focused on how much you do it specially for the ladies, and you're a gentleman. That, for me, makes it too hard to believe that you just do it for everyone. Because if you did, it would seem you'd have just said that outright.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 07:36 PM
0

No, I'm not ok with it, but you do realise that all safe and infrequent drivers pay more than they should, right? This has nothing to do with demographics. The solution is to add some sort of better qualifier to deduce driving skill than only accidents caused. No, I'm not ok with a woman paying less for insurance if she's a bad driver, or a man paying the same for insurance if he's a bad driver. Again, this isn't men/women, this is safe/unsafe drivers. If, after a new theoretical way to qualify …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 06:05 PM
1

That's very true. I always thought that there should be a better way to quantify who is a safe driver. Accidents already do this to an extent, but they are such infrequent events among even bad drivers that they can't be used as effectively as I would like. It's a sample size problem, really.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 05:56 PM
0

While I agree with you in theory, it would make insurance of all sorts prohibitively expensive for most people. Take health insurance for example. If each patient pays exactly the same, the mosre healthy (low-risk) people will be vastly overpaying, and the less-healthy (high-risk) people will be even more vastly underpaying. More specifically, with numbers: if your provider has 1000 patients, and 950 are healthy and cost $1000 every year, 40 are sick and cost $10000 every year, and 9 are chronic…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 05:54 PM
2

Ja, genau das trägt dazu bei, die Vorliebe für Drama. Deine Aussage ist korrekt. Anekdoten allein sind keinerlei Beweise. Aber dazu gebe ich eine eigene Aussage: nur weil etwas anekdotisch ist, heißt es lange nicht dass es nicht stimmt. Beispiel: ich kenne einige Deutsche die deutsch sprechen. Das ist zwar bloß anekdotisch, aber zugleich stimmt es offensichtlich. Diese Mentalität ist einfach so, und nur weil dieser Blogger gerade ein Beispiel beschrieb heißt nicht dass was er lügt (was Du mit Sa…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 05:42 PM
2

Du solltest wissen dass manche Dinge wirklich anders sind in Amerika. Ich bin selber aus Deutschland, aber habe dort Jahre gelebt. Und diese Mentalität ist total ausgeprägt, besonders der Teil von wegen "Männer sind ekelhafte vergewaltigende Schweine". Es ist merkwürdig weil das Land meist eher weit rechts liegt, aber bei Feminismus ist es kurioserweise ziemlich linksextrem.
/r/MensRights30/11/12 12:43 PM
1

The thing I don't understand is that first you include ladies with people incapable of standing comfortably, but then later on you say it's really just about anyone who is standing. If that is the case, why are you sitting at all? Surely there's a male, female, able-bodied, disabled, old, young, etc. person who looks uncomfortable with standing, and sitting would be robbing them of their seat. See, the second paragraph basically says once there are more people than seats on a bus you are standin…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 12:29 PM
0

There may be nothing intrinsic to men or women that makes them better or worse drivers, which includes recklessness, but if it can be concretely proven that their male customers cost them x% more, I actually don't think it's bad to then go and charge x% more. After all, even if it is non-innate that men cost more in insurance claims, the fact is that we do, and this isn't fundamentally different from innate differences. Whether men are pushed by society to make dumb choices behind the wheel and …
/r/MensRights30/11/12 12:11 PM
8

I'm European and I honestly think this is really dumb. If a statistic allows an insurance company to calculate a risk significantly better, it should be done. Gender and race, no matter how politically incorrect, included. What I would be for, though, is having the insurance companies need to prove to the public that their calculated rate increase correlates fairly precisely with the increased risk. Funny thing, this unisex insurance topic is an outstanding way to tell a bigot from a normal pers…
/r/MensRights30/11/12 02:29 AM
38

I don't recommend it. A woman can make you bloody and you can do nothing in self-defense, and you will still go to jail while she walks. A restraining order is also possible while she lives in both of your house, and you have to couchsurf. I know this sounds radical and made-up, but I've actually got firsthand experience with it. That certainly doesn't mean it will definitely happen to you or anyone else, but it's well within the realm of reality.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 08:44 PM
1

Rape is also a positive experience for us men because finally, at long last, we can appreciate just a tiny fraction of the disgusting, piggish sex we all continually, unrelentingly crave.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 07:59 PM
15

The hell is this, Cosmo Lite?
/r/MensRights27/11/12 12:41 AM
2

Well, I know you weren't talking about your attitude on the women involved, but I wanted to, so I brought it up. Your concern is valid, in my opinion. I think there are some users that want to just be able to get out of their responsibilities. But I don't think that covers the majority of them. I think that when an accident happens, and one person wants to keep it, and the other doesn't, there's a dilemma. If the person who doesn't want it is the woman, it has to go her way. Simple as that. She'…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 07:46 PM
1

Yes, pro-adoption, that is a typo. I guess what I'm getting at is why do you have no objection to adoption or abortion as a means to absolve both parties of financial responsibility, or only one party if that parts has a vagina? I'd like to see you qualify that a woman who doesn't want to pay for a baby and so aborts it is not "being a whiny little bitch" and "needs to take responsibility for her actions" after your earlier statements.
/r/MensRights21/11/12 11:08 PM
1

What led me to believe you were possibly trolling wasn't in the question, but it lied in the comments. Essentially in the way you replied to comments. No matter, as I'll accept that you are serious and treat you as such. So what I've gotten from the post is that there is a third option after all - if I understand you correctly, you are saying that both the man and the woman in such a scenario already have to take equal responsibility for the child once it is conceived, correct? I don't know wher…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 09:15 PM
3

Let me ask you - do you reject the idea that both a man and a woman choose to have sex (in a heterosexual situation), do you accept this idea but ignore the fact that only one person is being expected to take responsibility, or is there a third option. I kind of get the feeling you're a troll, but if not I'd really like to see your perspective.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:25 PM
1

Men, can you even think of a single goddamn way you have ever been mocked that wasn’t related to something that a misogynist society sees as feminizing? Easy, I'm sure not even this guy could twist the word "creepy" to primarily apply to women. And even if he does, then slut shaming is misandry.
/r/MensRights20/11/12 08:14 PM
20

If we, as women and as society, can accept body hair on a man, that means that body hair isn’t disgusting. It’s just gross when it’s on a woman. Maybe it’s just me, but that seems a little unfair. But just a few sentences earlier: Traditionally, No Shave November has been an excuse for men to let their facial hair grow out to lumberjack-level beastliness. This generally results in the occasional turned-off chick What, now?
/r/MensRights18/11/12 09:55 PM
6

You do know this is a case of Poe's Law, right?
/r/MensRights16/11/12 08:38 PM
1

I'm pretty sure that was literally pk_atheist's point.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 05:28 PM
2

I fully intend to.
/r/MensRights14/11/12 08:45 AM
53

Was arrested in a domestic dispute. Never had a problem with the law before then, or after. I was the only one bleeding. The cops didn't care that there was damage at all, told me I made it up. The charge I got stuck with was battery for letting my blood get on the aggressor. The aggressor got to walk free, even after I made a police report (mysteriously was irretrievably deleted). Then they discussed how to possibly stick me with a felony charge while on the way to prison. Fucking killed femini…
/r/MensRights14/11/12 03:32 AM
6

Nice. SRS invaded the very first comment in that link.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:33 PM
1

Thanks. At least they were intending to link to something resembling a source.
/r/MensRights04/11/12 06:11 PM
4

Check out their source for the claim that "the majority of low income and poor people are women", the very first claim in the article. That's right, a 404. How can you get more baseless?
/r/MensRights04/11/12 03:34 AM
11

Lawyer up. It's the only useful thing we can tell you anyway.
/r/MensRights03/11/12 11:29 PM
3

I'll be honest, I only read your comment thread. I think it's good that a boy was cast in a stereotypically female role with stereotypically female colours, since we have a lot of the opposite (tonboyish girls and such), but not a lot of this. However, I don't agree with the continued association of housework (and dolls for that matter) with pink, and with girliness, and if that is what the other users are arguing for, I do disagree with them. Hmm, I suppose that we fundamentally disagree here. …
/r/MensRights03/11/12 03:59 PM
7

From the context, I can see two arguments: first about the items' colour, and second about whether or not cleaning fantasy should be allowed as play. I agree with you on the first point, although I think you are being a little nitpicky. No one needs pink fridges to clean, but that is just the way children's toys are. I think that trying to make everything as realistic as possible for children is a false goal, while toys are often simplified. Do you take issue with this kind of toy car as well? N…
/r/MensRights03/11/12 03:31 PM
1

Yeah, and women are weak and dumb and can't insult properly, so women won't be hurt by other women. Can't believe they're actually acting according to this shitty type of thinking.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 06:32 PM
6

Or female gamers for making anti-female remarks. That is to say, I'd be disappointed but not surprised if the only bans happening over this were directed at males making anti-female remarks, but every other combination is ok by them.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 12:59 AM
1

Don't worry, your sarcasm wasn't too subtle to detect, you didn't have to make it any more obvious. But this attitude shows you have little (or no) experience with actual police. Did you know that in many pleaces, they actually have to take one person to jail on charges like these? It's specified to be the alleged aggressor. Guess who that is (hint: not the victim).
/r/MensRights30/10/12 06:28 PM
2

Be glad they took the cuffs off just based on your side of the story. Many times, no matter how ridiculous the female's side of the story is, to the point of literally not possible, they will still haul you off anyway and let the DA deal with it.
/r/MensRights29/10/12 09:37 AM
0

Shaming what, exactly? Stop making stuff up, and keep pressing the blue if you like it so much. All I expect is you to know that you're the one who is doing it, not anyone else.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 06:58 PM
18

Two quotes by the same person, Shevchenko: "We're going to catch them and castrate them." "That it is a peaceful way," Shevchenko says. "But they are even ready to use violence against our peaceful, naked bodies."
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:27 AM
0

I don't know if you think you're actually fooling me, or if you're making me mad. But you remain the only mad one in here, and your logic is less than flawless. Maybe just chill, work on managing your anger a little.
/r/MensRights22/10/12 07:14 AM
1

I didn't downvote you; it was some random person that decided to go down this thread, downvote you, and leave my comment alone. If you think it was an unlikely scenario to happen for the first few comments in this thread, where it happens frequently, then you especially cannot think it is a reasonable explanation for a single post much later in a thread, days after the thread was made. So, it's clear you downvoted me in order to try to use my logic on me, whereas all you did was simulate a situa…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 02:18 PM
0

Yes, you should have been able to get that from the situation, moreso than anyone else should have gotten than you were joking. Put it any way you want, my comment was more obviously satire than yours. But hey, at least you downvoted me again. Hope it feels nice for you, especially since in this case even you can see that I didn't do a such thing.
/r/MensRights21/10/12 01:57 PM
0

You may find this shocking, but sometimes people downvote one post and leave the other post alone. Welcome to Reddit, hope you learn about how it works after being here for a year. Especially the bit about the time. Provide proof that it happened at the time you said it did. admitted you downvoted That was obviously not meant to be taken literally, you should have been able to grasp that it was a suggestion for a reason why people downvoted you, after specifically asking for it. I like returning…
/r/MensRights21/10/12 12:11 PM
1

You do know that the fact that there was so little voting going on is precisely due to the fact that people would have to click "show comments", right? And you also know that some people are stingy with upvotes? I find it likelier that such a person came across this thread that that I downvoted just because we were having a discussion (one where we didn't even disagree vehemently). But hey, I hope your perceived retaliation makes you feel like a big man.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 02:01 PM
1

Well, I wasn't ever talking about conservative politicans, much less the US Democrats and Republicans, both of which seem to be pretty unpopular now. I'm talking about everyday conservatives and what they value in gender roles.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:50 PM
1

Well, I kind of agree with you. I wasn't talking about the general social acceptance, but rather specifically about how shocked they seemed by one and not the other. Of course, acceptance plays a role, but I think how commonplace anything is will play a bigger role in how shocked someone is when they see it.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:49 PM
1

"My downvotes?" Come on now, don't make assumptions, sometimes people other than the person you are talking to hit that button.
/r/MensRights16/10/12 12:44 PM
1

In other words they're sexist essentialists, but it's positive for women so it's totally cool according to them. Exactly. "It's not sexism when we do it."
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:19 AM
3

I guess how everyone is making such a big deal about a man hitting a woman while the reverse happens in exactly the same video just goes to show how commonplace and acceptable one is, and how rare the other is. Edit: they claim he has more power than her. Can someone please explain how this is the case? They are both yelling at each other, but she has the freedom to go away, but he does not. She has the power to decide how long the altercation goes on because she is not bound to the driver's sea…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:11 AM
1

It kind of is incoherent. Let me try to rephrase it, but from an outside point of view: They may view the "fact" that women never do harm not as something a woman cannot do, but they may rephrase it into the idea that women can control themselves from doing harm but men cannot. And then it would be in order to add something about how what women can do better than men is always positive, and the few things men are more likely to do a lot of (important: they're still not better) are totally negati…
/r/MensRights14/10/12 05:03 AM
2

Again, it would be easy to find a way around that. "But not with harm, if you inflict harm it is you who is incapable of doing something, which is preserving peace." Sorry man, I know none of the stuff I've been posting makes much sense, but that's exactly the problem with trying to deal logically with someone who has forsaken it.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:53 AM
2

Ok, in that case would you say that conservatives tend to ignore gender roles altogether? There's also of course a third alternative, that conservatives tend to try to force people into exploring new and non-traditional gender roles, but I consider it unlikely enough that you think so, so that it would be an insult if I asked seriously.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:47 AM
2

Still clear-cut to them. I'm pretty sure they would reply with something along the lines of "it's what's inside that counts" and "female gun owners wouldn't hurt anyone". Basically, pointing out ways in which they are similar, or do similar amounts of damage, are pretty easy to dismiss if you come with the built-in notion of one group being evil and another being loving and innocent.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:45 AM
3

I don't think that would hold up in an argument against them (although it certainly should), because in many people's minds, especially the types who would run this, children of all genders belong into the "harmless" category along with women. The only dilemma in their minds is when a child-male becomes a male and must be kept away from the taxis.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:26 AM
2

Well, seeing as how I said feminists are true conservatives, you better believe I don't think conservatives are woman-haters. Note that I said conservatives work hard to enforce old gender roles. Would you not agree that that is one of many facets of conservatism?
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:16 AM
7

Yes, not to mention that I highly doubt they refuse male children. The artcle says "The service is also popular for the school run. 'Parents feel safer. They can track us and check we’ve arrived safely,' says Maggie." I bet, along the lines of "women and children", little boys are allowed to ride in these taxis wile older boys are not.
/r/MensRights14/10/12 04:12 AM
8

Funny how they get that sexuality is not a choice (well, most of them...) but not this.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:08 PM
6

Yep. In more than just a few ways, feminists are the true conservatives. Mind-blowing when they work so hard to enforce the gender roles they say they despise, and call anyone a "hate group" who points it out.
/r/MensRights13/10/12 04:04 PM
1

Some ways you can arrive at the conclusion that MGM is misogyny are that it takes pleasure away from women, or that it leads women to be blamed for it, or that it implies women are dirty while men are clean. Note that I disagree with all of them.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 08:16 PM
1

You're absolutely right about the cycle thing, but I'll still never agree with you that things that end up hurting one gender are really actually hate against the other. Just because a specific thing contributes to the cycle you mentioned isn't reason enough, in my opinion, to qualify it as the opposite of what it really is. What do you think of the three examples I posted? Would you also say those are misogyny? I've seen people arrive at that conclusion in a fucked-up way for each of them.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:46 PM
3

In a lot of ways, rape culture is actually misandry. Am I wrong about this? Yeah, I think so. Honestly, assuming rape culture existed to the extent your post assumes, this is basically the same thing as feminists arguing that conscription or divorce courts or male genital mutilation is secretly misogyny. I just can't support that type of logic, I'm sorry.
/r/MensRights12/10/12 07:33 PM
1

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. In that paragraph, I pointed out where you accused someone of saying they [the mods of /r/keto] shouldn't be able to choose. It seemed the general concensus among the comments was that it was a bad thing on keto's part not to join. Nope, not at all. It was a bad thing to make such an unnecessary comment, thereby clearly joining the argument on the side of the doxxers. I argued in favor of their choice to join or not to join. And no one argued agains…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 08:08 PM
2

Ok, you're not going to have it easy. Right, I'm the one with the "us vs them mentality" when I think a fucking diet subreddit should be able to choose whether or not they want to be caught up in this gigantic shitcane. This is known as "sarcasm", where you say one thing but mean another to emphasize how dumb it supposedly sounds. In addition, the term "the one" is used to imply "as opposed to the other party in question". So, if you take it literally, it reads "Unlike you, I have an us vs. them…
/r/MensRights11/10/12 06:24 PM
1

That's not the issue here, I invite you to point out where any of us said they shouldn't be able to choose. And then you should note that they did get involved, so whether or not we think they should have a right not to is no longer relevant.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 05:58 PM
1

"Why is female bisexuality more acceptable than male bisexuality?" Because misogyny. So wait... being generally accepting of a gender's LGBT-status citizens indicates hate of that gender. Ok, so let's try to make it more general: being generally accepting of a person's LGBT status indicates hate for them. Oh shit, we've arrived at one of those terrible religious "pray the gay away because we care about you" arguments. Feminists: hating your faggotry for your own good since October 11, 2012.
/r/MensRights11/10/12 04:12 PM
2

This isn't about SRS and what they consider paedos. It's about Reddit users being doxxed by a really unprofessional news network. I'm fairly sure most of us dislike violentacrez and his subs, but the point is that some crazies could just decide to do it to you or me one day, for doing something they disagree with. You can't always please everyone. tl;dr - you are still falling into an "us vs. them" mentality, which is fallacious and exactly what these slimy people want you to do
/r/MensRights11/10/12 12:13 PM
0

The latter. If you mean the former, I suggest you read up on Poe's law. Also, I consider that unlikely because your edit did nothing to clear it up if it indeed was the former, and that is what most peole would have done.
/r/MensRights10/10/12 10:06 AM
2

Interesting, thanks. How do you suppose they managed the cognitive dissonance between being able to admit the act of sex in itself is good but that taking pleasure in it outside certain narrow boundaries is bad? Most religious groups manage it by deciding the act itself is bad.
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:53 PM
4

The fuschia tags. They are fuschia. http://imgur.com/a/vP4rY
/r/MensRights08/10/12 10:14 PM
2

Source?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:59 PM
2

I agree with most of your general assessment, except for this: since she's the one being penetrated and at risk for tearing Do you know what frenulum breakage is and just how common it is?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 09:56 PM
0

Which part, the herd-mentality sentence, or the part where you want people to explain why they downvoted?
/r/MensRights08/10/12 07:37 PM
4

Honestly, if you had sex with an uncut man once, and you then claim that "a cut man helps me orgasm", then no, you can't get anywhere. You could get somewhere by saying that a lot of narrow-minded girls in some countries prefer cut penises when they haven't had both though, based on what they consider to be a more normal type of penis. Because that is true.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:28 PM
4

Have you had both? I am beginning to doubt it now, since you claim that uncut penises have no flare on their heads. And much more so because you are claiming that a cut man "helps with your difficult ogasms" as if it's a universal qualifier. To the rest of us, it sounds like "I'm a person that tends to get thristy anyways, so drinking ocean water helps."
/r/MensRights07/10/12 11:16 PM
4

That's right. And you should also know that you are one of the only women that actually prefers cut men (I am making the assumption you have had both). Almost all of the rest who have tried both prefer natural.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:55 PM
3

Sure, it makes me happy for your unborn son, no doubt. But it doesn't really answer my question.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:39 PM
5

People do commit both types of genital mutilation illegally where laws prevent it. Personally, I think whether something is legal is a pretty bad indicator of morality. I don't do everything that is legal just because it is legal, I consider morality first and foremost. But anyway, let me approach this from a different angle then. Do you want to be circumcised even though the law does not allow it?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:33 PM
4

That's not a good enough argument, I'm talking from a moral standpoint. If you are trying to convince me that if you were legally allowed to be circumcised that you would be, I'm afraid I don't believe you. The reason is that people get really up in arms defending how great male circumcision is, and would be willing to do it illegally if the laws changed. By this logic, lots of women would be missing their clitoral hoods, but the truth of the matter represents something else.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:19 PM
2

And honestly, they should have kept the whole "religious freedoms" bit, because it still accurately represents the debate (especially in my country).
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:14 PM
6

In case you didn't notice, the last case was neither rare nor specific, it is the result every single time.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:12 PM
4

I downvoted for the "if everyone else were jumping off a bridge you should too" mentality.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:09 PM
3

Can I ask you a serious question: do you still have your clitoral hood? I'm 99% certain you do. If I'm right, why?
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:07 PM
15

Because this comic originally had different words.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:05 PM
7

This is one of the most common arguments for circumcision, but it's not logic any proponents of circumcision are willing to apply to any other body parts besides penises. Until I find someone willing to actually support this argument after making it, it's getting filed off in the "double standard" drawer.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 10:03 PM
23

That's not a perceived health benefit to genital mutilation, it's a real mental drawback to being narrow-minded like you.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 09:58 PM
3

A lot of pro-circumcision arguments revolve around how safe you are from STDs if you are cut, and that you don't have as much of a need for condoms.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 04:47 PM
74

"But that's slut shaming, why do you want to oppress her into your little narrow view of sexuality?"
/r/MensRights07/10/12 08:45 AM
4

At least the top comments address this attitude.
/r/MensRights06/10/12 01:18 PM
2

The disproportionate hate toward gay men as compared to Lesbians takes this issue and puts it squarely in our territory too.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 10:50 PM
5

Actually, I've got to disagree with you on some technicalities. Yes, you are more qualified if you have an ability to add to something valuable. Remember that this is all with the assumption made that diversity is valuable to begin with. And then, yes, just because you were born a certain way can make you more qualified. Take someone who is born especially strong - they are especially qualified for construction work and similar jobs. And someone born especially smart? They are more qualified tha…
/r/MensRights05/10/12 08:38 PM
13

My uncle parks in "mothers' spots" when he has kids along. I respect him for it, because they are made because children are difficult to drag throug the entire carpark, and they're not suddenly much easier if you have a penis. I don't park in them though, because I do think they should be reserved for parents. Plus, people would talk to me as they talk to my uncle and as they talked to OP, and at least he has a good defence - he has kids, he's using a parent parking spot for a good reason. Most …
/r/MensRights05/10/12 07:40 AM
13

This post doesn't need a /s tag, it's (unfortunately) true if taken literally.
/r/MensRights04/10/12 11:00 PM
1

You are right. What I wrote should read not "to not be alone with women" but rather "to have no contact with women". The rest about how unrealistic that is for most of us still applies, not to mention the fact that virtually all of us have some women that we really love and couldn't be without. Wives, daughters, relatives, friends...
/r/MensRights03/10/12 07:28 PM
1

"If she wasn't so infuriating then maybe I wouldn't have to beat her!"
/r/MensRights03/10/12 10:18 AM
1

Personally, I don't think this is an especially gendered issue. People may hate me for it, but I think Obama is so popular among women because they think he's hot. But guess what? The same went for men and Palin. Really, we should be focusing on the fact that politicians have turned themselves into brands based on feelings and looks rather than ideologies and platforms. That's the real problem, and a large portion of the voters are going along with it too.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 08:44 AM
0

Similar goes for me, but thankfully they pulled out their line about clothing so that I would know what they are really talking about.
/r/MensRights03/10/12 06:45 AM
4

I've heard a whole lot of people use the term to try to describe fearlessness and confidence, when they really were just being unnecessarily inconsiderate to quell their own insecurities. Picking fights in bars, being rude to strangers, and driving like a prick all fit this.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 10:08 PM
1

I think it's pretty damn simple, for two reasons: firstly, even though it is pointy, it has a distinct head, shaft, and balls. I can't think of a single other thing that this could represent. And secondly, the context makes it pretty obvious that they're going to use a pictogram to represent something quintessentially male. I didn't really get what the clothes hanger meant at first, but down below it uses the phrase "they way they dress", which means it's almost certainly going to be a feminist …
/r/MensRights02/10/12 09:00 PM
3

Well, really, it's true. The only way to definitely not be falsely accused is to never be alone with women, ever. It's a good point that a lot of us don't ever forget - that every time you are alone with a woman, you are taking that risk. However, I also think that most of us find the risk small enough and manageable enough that we choose to be alone with women sometimes. Perhaps not all women, or those that have histories of doing this, but I daresay that many of this sub's (male, of course) su…
/r/MensRights02/10/12 08:08 PM
6

I don't know if a lot of people will agree with me, but you should let it go. People who have believed one thing for long enough won't be easy to change, and in a teacher-student relationship, guess who is going to be the one to suffer?
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:43 PM
27

I'm amazed at their honesty with this poster. Even if it is unintentional, which it seems to be, they have finally put a simple-to-identify pictogram of exactly what they think is the sole cause of all rape, and pointed this out bluntly. Who's surprised it's a penis? Not anyone.
/r/MensRights02/10/12 07:33 PM
8

Or to just dismiss it as bullshit. Sad, but it's how it works. I think that's why OP is advocating for "intact" instead, it still gets people to think "why is unintact considered the norm", but without the (outright) negativity that makes most people shut down.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:05 AM
5

The real and known phenomena that I’m aware of is every rapist and abuser and their lawyer using this defense [that the rape accusation is false]. Too bad that people are giving this defence more and more credence by supporting those who abuse the power of this accusation rather than the real victims of the real crime. Seriously, if I were a feminist I think I'd be pissed that a theoretical friend's real rape accusation would be taken significantly less seriously just because some of my peers th…
/r/MensRights27/09/12 10:11 PM
3

So he stopped working one day and "kinda never went back" because "it's more comfy with the kids at home"? Hm, sounds oddly familiar. Though, I can see her point of view too. Regardless of gender, I wouldn't want my partner to never work (at a job, for pay). That would be a dealbreaker for me, personally, antiquated gender roles or not.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 09:54 PM
2

And you do realise that in this case, economics was used to explain a phenomenon (more specifically, the lack thereof) in the economic world? Although you are wrong that it's inaccurate to start with, no one is even talking about the "real world".
/r/MensRights27/09/12 08:33 PM
3

They say it because it's easy to say, not because it's true.
/r/MensRights27/09/12 06:40 PM
1

Only if you wear it on your vagina. /s
/r/MensRights26/09/12 09:17 PM
1

Yes, I am glad for you. Due to the very nature of breaking up, staying on good terms with your ex can be difficult. I wasn't arguing against child support as a whole, by the way. I think it's necessary as a safety net, because some children really do need it, but the way it's used currently is atrocious. I was just trying to point out said atrocity that people are so concerned that one partner might (oh no!) feel bad about having their spending habits scrutinised for the good of the child, while…
/r/MensRights24/09/12 09:20 PM
7

I wouldn't feel comfortable if someone was allowed to monitor or dictate how I spend my money I know you are using this as an argument against monitoring of how money is spent, but I'd like to point out that the same thing is uncomfortable for those who have to pay child support in the first place.
/r/MensRights24/09/12 12:41 AM
3

I don't know if you crafted your name like that on purpose. But I like it, it fits you.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 10:54 PM
2

This is what I expected to be the destination of the link in this post of yours, based on the test "women can stop rape". I was surprised when it was an imgur link, but good to know I was right in the end. By the way, go ahead and call me a mangina next. I like being right.
/r/MensRights23/09/12 02:50 AM
5

Just today I was reading an SRS thread (why do I do these things?) where someone claimed that all domestic violence ever is perpetrated by men on women, and that whenever a man calls the police about a violent women, it's shitthatneverhappened.txt. Their reaction to this video would probably be either that his words were worse than her fists, and therefore it should be disregarded, or it's a one-in-a-million case. But it's a delicious feeling knowing that if they weren't so aware of racism they'…
/r/MensRights23/09/12 01:39 AM
9

Maybe I'm just being fucking dense, but I never got why anyone at all cared about how women dressed, feminist, MRA, or otherwise. I never felt it had much influence on anything past what social circles that person is likely to be moving about it, and the only thing I've ever seen as an explanation for this was a passing comment that some preacher once blamed rape on female clothing. So, why is everyone so focused on this?
/r/MensRights23/09/12 01:00 AM
1

What you're buying is the illusion of sex. Yep, exactly. However, I think you are still misunderstanding one thing, which is that when I say "the men that try to manipulate sex out of women", I'm not using the word "sex" as "everything that sex should be in a good, healthy context" but simply literal, physical intercourse. This is where I think we keep getting caught up, because you keep claiming that it's not possible to manipulate sex out of a person because then it isn't sex anymore, but we b…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 08:52 PM
1

Then they're idiots. Now you're getting it. The world is completely full of them. Alternatively the manipulators have been manipulated by the overwhelming social message that female sexuality is more valuable then male. This isn't an "alternative", it's exactly what causes this type of behaviour. Both parties in this case are manipulated by this ridiculous message, and then seek to manipulate each other to get sex and money out of each other. And as I said in the beginning, I'm happy if they end…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 08:49 PM
11

This is painful to read, because of an extremely similar story that happened to me. Except I never laid my hands on the woman at all, but she nearly broke my nose and had me bleeding everywhere, and I was the only one arrested. Then I was told I could not go back to my own home so I slept on friend's couches and bought clothes as I went along and fought to win the court case. Once I gather enough time and courage I'll post the entire awful story with proof.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:39 PM
2

Perhaps, but I never thought of two men together as something that only a non-heterosexual women would enjoy (or be ok with).
/r/MensRights22/09/12 01:01 PM
5

Indeed it does. Well, I live in a place thankfully where people are a little more equal than what MR issues suggest, including homophobia against men. So although I do have to tell pretty much each and every person who knows about it, they rarely do mind. But here, when I got an "ew" comment or something similar, it has been from a woman pretty much every time. Maybe because they see the attraction to boys as a threat? I don't know, I'm no psychologist.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:46 PM
3

No, few people ever spot me as non-hetero. I literally have to tell pretty much everyone who I would like to know about that. And you're right, their gaydar doesn't function especially well. I'm guessing you are talking about real life, right? Because when I mentioned exclusion I was talking about the sub, where you can't tell a person's sexuality unless they mention it, ever.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:26 PM
1

No, no. You are still not getting it. There are some people in this world for whom it does not matter if the sex is mutual, only that they got to touch a vagina. Yes, this may well be different from your view, but just because you have one view, and it happens to be the healthy one, doesn't mean that it's impossible for others to have a different, less healthy, view. I understand what you are saying. No need to repeat it again. Please try to understand what I am saying. It does not make sense to…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:24 PM
36

As another bisexual, I've got to say that the homophobia I've gotten has been pretty equally distributed between men and women. And that is considering that men tend to give more grief, as you pointed out (I agree with your assessment) but I actually think that more women are not ok with men also liking other men. They call me, you guessed it, their favourite shaming word - a creep. Perhaps this has to do with the social circles in which I move, because the HEY FAGGOT thing isn't something I'm e…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:58 AM
1

Because sex should be a mutual activity, saying it is is ignoring the sad truth. I'm sure you know damn well that with women who use sex to get what they want, it's not mutual. But strangely, it is consenting, which rules out rape. For me, it has to be obviously mutual for it to be pleasurable, as it seems to be for you. But you should also know that this isn't important for a lot of people. This is especially true for those who manipulate others to get sex. Why do you think someone who manipula…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 02:30 AM
3

Yes they do, when a women seeks a financial servant and a man seeks a sexual servant, and each is using lying and manipulation to get there, I'll venture the claim that they deserve each other. One of his tricks will be spending money, and one of her tricks will be sex. In the end, they both technically get what they wanted. I'm not sure why you think that these men who try to open the puzzle box for the sex treat expect it to be mutually beneficial at all, but... it's usually not, just like the…
/r/MensRights22/09/12 01:36 AM
2

Thank you, I read through these and they are very informative.
/r/MensRights22/09/12 12:26 AM
1

Quite interesting, not something I expected at first but makes sense considering how women are taught it's ok to hit but men are taught it's not ok to hit. Source?
/r/MensRights21/09/12 09:32 PM
1

Actually, I get the feeling that it's healthier than the straight community too. As I said though, I can't make any claims.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 09:08 PM
1

You're right that it used to be laughable to go to jail for consensual sex when both parties had been drinking. I mean, how do you even shoose which ones goes to jail? Must be random, right? Wrong, it's always the man. This is why the gender dichotomy is so important, it's used, for example, to pick which of the drunk consenters was right and which one was the rapist. And that is also true when choosing the rapist without alcohol. This is why you suddenly won't see women going to jail, because i…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 07:10 PM
3

I think a false gender dochotomy is absolutely necessary. Many laws are not gender neutral. This happens in a sneaky way, though - they say that the only way to rape is to penetrate. Well, that's basically saying that the rapist has to use his penis. Under those laws, only the few women who forced a foreign object into a man's body are considered rapists, not the vast majority who simply forced a man to penetrate them. But this way, the laws don't say "man" or "woman", they only accept male geni…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:50 PM
9

Having not read the original piece, I was actually going to point out that while there are lots of women who do this for money, there are also a sizeable amount of men who do it for sex. Well played. This will sound pretty cynical, but I think those types deserve each other.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 06:00 PM
2

I didn't think that was the point, although you are absolutely right about the risk. What I got as the point is that society puts pressure on people to become parents, so some people buckle to that pressure and become parents anyway, intentionally, even though deep down they don't really want to. Kind of like the boy who deep down would rather play with dolls than dump trucks, but because of all of his friends pretends, even to himself, that dump trucks are the coolest things and asks his parent…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:42 PM
2

I actually didn't watch the video, because it took a little bit to load and I wasn't patient enough. But I did want to reply to this comment once I saw it. If you are right about it spreading, then something unprecedented will have to happen. For this to be happening in the straight community, people need to define two different groups, with one as an aggressive, ahetful perpetrator, and the other as a nice resistor who is not always successful. Easy, pick men and women. In the gay community? Wh…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:35 PM
-2

transphobia Oh well, there goes SRS.
/r/MensRights21/09/12 05:02 PM
5

But if they really get their way, the laws will only apply to women who stop halfway through. As someone who has stakes in both communities, straight and gay, I can without a doubt say that they are extremely different. The gay community is much healthier, and I'm not saying this to somehow put down heterosexuals or say that the people themselves are unhealthy, believe me. But there are just too much cross-gender tensions, unsound expectations, guilt-trips, conflicting goals, and so on. I get th…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:58 PM
1

That's not exactly what I meant by the comment, but I can see how you got to it. I actually totally agree with you though. This is why I said if you ask, not that you are obligated to. Social protocol though would dictate that if you are getting some negative vibes from your partner during sex that you ask if it's good. At least, that's what I would do. And then I expect my partner to give an honest answer. Checking constantly is stupidly unrealistic, not to mention the idea that even if he or s…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 04:32 PM
35

Doesn't she have to tell me if she's not into it? Yes, if you ask. This is the correct answer. The base argument itself isn't bad, because it's intended to cover cases where someone isn't sure what to say, but the way it's twisted in this picture makes it so that a person can choose to lie and later turn their partner, who was working with the best of their knowledge, into a villain. It's as if I gave someone a gift, clearly intended it as such with a "To:" tag and wrapping paper, and later said…
/r/MensRights21/09/12 10:25 AM
2

the school district recognized that in the 21st Century, public schools have no business fostering the notion that girls prefer to go to formal dances while boys prefer baseball games So, we have recognized that, in the 21st century, we have much business fostering the notion that girls don't prefer to to go to formal dances and boys to baseball games, to the point where we had it banned if they do enjoy it. /s I would have been all for the decision if it had been something along the lines of en…
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:25 AM
1

I agree with you about the social dynamics, but I don't think this article is connected any more to these social dynamics than day-to-day life. There is no implication that would lead a reader to believe that anyone is upset no men came to help them, and the atricle and its quotes don't have that tone of entitlement. They are just disappointed about the bystander effect, which is, you have to admit, pretty disappointing.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:19 AM
0

Not to mention /r/LadyMRAs.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 12:19 AM
0

Sounds like nothing more than a sex-negative feminist to me. Romantic intimacy doesn't often cross their minds, and when it does, it's never about how to successfully facilitate it.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 12:08 AM
98

Agreed absolutely. It's far too perfect to be true. The dead giveaway was the last bit, I have not once seen a proponent of cicumcision ever accept that it removes sensitivity. A more subtle way to have taken this troll is to pretend that breastfeeding boys turns them into creeps by getting them addicted to sex early.
/r/MensRights12/09/12 12:05 AM
3

To make a comment on the sentiment that all sexism, including that against men, is due to patriarchy: I see this sentiment from people who call themselves feminists all the time. Assuming it's true (although I disagree), I am forced to ask myself why these people are so concerned with enforcing and fighting alongside what they deem the patriarchy. I thought they didn't like patriarchy?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 07:13 PM
14

Can't resist: Most likely because she doesn't like realising she's a rapist. /s
/r/MensRights10/09/12 10:48 PM
10

Actually, unreciprocated DV is more often perpetrated by women. Reciprocated is obviously roughly the same. Have you ever wondered what the consequences of telling generation after generation of youth that it's ok for a woman to hit a man but not ok for a man to hit a woman? Well, here they are.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 09:20 PM
15

Who would downvote this? This is exactly what SRS is, nothing more, nothing less.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 03:02 PM
3

Funny thing is, you only need one word to shut that person up: VAWA.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 02:37 PM
1

But she won't.
/r/MensRights08/09/12 12:51 PM
12

No joke. They quite literally suck the blood out of the baby boys' penises. Edit: Also, whoever downvoted you has quite the quick trigger finger. No need to press that button just because you knew something someone else didn't.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 05:40 PM
13

Don't forget to include the old bearded religious official cleaning the resulting wound with his mouth if done for religious reasons.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 03:31 PM
7

Critics, however, were not convinced. They liken the procedure to female genital mutilation. Oh. Really? I never would have guessed it's remotely analogous. /s
/r/MensRights02/09/12 09:56 PM
3

To be fair, radical and immature are not all that different.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 02:22 PM
1

What a terrible way to present a valid point. Unless I'm misunderstanding the article, she's basically saying that she is dissatisfied enough with her culture to want to marry out of it. Nothing wrong with that. But then to spin it the way she does completely tears down any illusion of legitimacy.
/r/MensRights02/09/12 01:26 AM
7

Yes, I agree with you that it was probably picked since it usually implies sexual clothing to grab attention and possibly even make a linguistic comparison to what a lot of people see in their mind's eye when a father buys clothes for his kids. And I also agree with you that it causes too much confusion to be practical.
/r/MensRights18/08/12 03:30 PM
10

Not sure if you are responding to the content or the terminology, so excuse me if I explain something you already knew. No offense ment. Lingerie is sometimes used as a word for simply (female) underwear, and in a non-sexy manner. This is why little girls' lingerie departments exist, but the products will have pictures of Mickey Mouse and such on them. Now as for a father not being allowed to pick up a pack of Mickey Mouse underwear for his daughter on the way home from wherever he was, that's b…
/r/MensRights18/08/12 03:03 PM
1

Most rational people would look at them and say "Wow, look at the horrible things MRAs believe." And because the "real" MRM and this group of people share the same label, it becomes confusing to talk about both of us and people will likely end up disliking us because of the crazy, attention-grabbing ideas that these pseudo-MRAs promote. This, right here, is a perfect description of what has happened to the label of feminism. I think it's very bad when that happens to any group with good intentio…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:49 PM
1

You're going to have to provide some good reasoning for why they were created for that purpose, because the real reason is just the opposite. Women in cultures who wear burqas say they are empowering, they elevate their status to "person" rather than "naked sex object", and that's very important in their highly macho cultures. If you still think they were created to give men power, I'll first refer you to the comic (the lady wearing the burqa feels that choosing not to wear one is a symbol of ma…
/r/MensRights15/08/12 02:47 PM
1

Which doesn't hold up to logic. Note that I'm not saying "there cannot be two forms of patriarchy", but rather "the same cause cannot be blamed for two opposite and contradictory reactions". For a non-gender-related example: If I am a pumpkin farmer and I have something against the wind, and one winter day all my pumpkins die, I may say that the wind circulated the cold air down toward my pumpkins and killed them, since wind moves always cold air down. But then a few years later one summer day a…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 12:46 AM
1

those same feminists This here is key, I highly doubt it's the same feminists that are doing each, more like different groups of feminists. And I'm going to be perfectly honest with you here, I didn't find any good sources of feminists shaming other women for their sexual preferences. I know what they do sounds contradictory, but that's exactly what infuriates me most about these types. If a sexual encounter is consenting, it should be ok. But at least some of them feel women should not be allow…
/r/MensRights13/08/12 12:38 AM
1

But the thing is, it means one thing in our culture, and another in another culture. This is exactly what I'm trying to get people to understand. It's not because "hurr patriarchy", that would only be arguable in either one of the two scenarios, not both.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 09:29 PM
1

Lies can always be told, and a jury that is told that you were an intimidating pedophile making threats in order to stay seated next to a child is not going to be very receptive to anything else. I'm not disagreeing with your principle though, just that refusing to move is probably not going to a be a particularly effective choice, both in trying to solve the actual problem, and in the plan to complete your flight without jail time.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 03:51 AM
2

The second one does not imply that women should be judged by their attractiveness alone. Since when does not wearing a burqa create a shield from their personality? But surely you knew that this was just an exercise in rhetoric, and that regardless of implications, real or interpreted, I'm not adovcating either of these ludicrous statements about the matriarchy. What's actually going on is that I'm pointing out that if you choose an item to use as the reason for one thing, it cannot simultaneous…
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:54 AM
1

I've never seen feminism advocate shaming any woman for what they choose to do with their body. This is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. A great example is the very comic in the OP. I've seen plenty of feminists shame women who choose to wear burqas, calling them "not real women" and other awful insults. And to give a different example, many feminists hate heterosexual women who enjoy being sexually submissive in a safe, consensual relationship.
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:50 AM
2

Wear too little? It's the matriarchy trying to enslave men and their wallets to women's sexual value. Wear too much? It's the matriarchy desperately trying to rob men of the ability to choose a decent partner. See how little sense contradictory viewpoints make?
/r/MensRights12/08/12 02:32 AM
3

I've first-hand witnessed discrimination toward men. Nearly every single person in the world has. Those who say they have not are either lying or extreme recluses. And of course this also applies to women.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 12:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter